#election 1936

[tomorrowusa]

No, this election was not a landslide any more than the 2020 election was. Because California is still counting votes, Donald Trump could still end up with under 50% of the popular vote.

Now 1936 was a genuine LANDSLIDE.

To me, a landslide in a presidential election is +60% of the popular votes and +75% of the electoral votes.

[mapsontheweb]

1936 US Presidential Election in Virginia by precinct

[nonsmokingant]

my fellow trans people!

when the government fails us, we stick together. solidarity is our safety. we form clubs and associations and chapters! we build support networks and whisper networks and underground life lines.

with the fascists in power, it may soon be time to hide each other in attics and basements, to help people move countries, to protect each other with our lives!

Get organized! Find each other! know your trans neighbours and allies! don’t go down without a fight. do what you have to, to survive. i’m not gonna let a single one of my sisters, brothers, siblings die alone.

don’t give in to despair, don’t give in to hate! we’ve been here for thousands of years and we’re gonna be here for thousands more.

[newyorkthegoldenage]

New Yorkers line up to vote in the presidential election, November 2, 1936.

Photo: General Photographic Agency/Getty Images/U.S. News & World Report

[deadpresidents]

Would I be correct in thinking that Jimmy Carter will soon be beating Alf Landon as the longest-lived major party presidential candidate? I know that there's also Strom Thurmond, but he was just a breakaway faction running in a few states.

Yes, I think Carter will pass Alf Landon on Election Day, actually.

And Strom Thurmond was the candidate of a breakaway faction, but he actually won more Electoral votes as the States' Rights/Dixiecrat nominee in 1948 (39) than Alf Landon did as the Republican nominee in 1936 (8). Thurmond also won twice as many states as Landon did (4-2).

[gregpoppleton]

Fred Astaire 1936 US Election - Phantom Dancer 5 November 2024

Fred Astaire – singer – on a 1936 US Presidential election radio show is your Phantom Dancer feature artist this week. You’ll hear Fred Astaire (actor, dancer, singer, choreographer, television presenter and considered the most influential dancer in the history of film) singing and tap dancing on a special election night edition of The Packard Hour radio show. The Packard Hour was Fred Astaire’s…

[frenchtwistresistance]

The question: The executor of the estate said, “I’ve got good news and bad news. The good news is that you’ve just inherited a million. The bad news is it’s a million _____ buttons.”

Brett, coming in hot with a Very Dated Reference to a Fail Kansan: Now, this is an answer that some people are not going to get, but you’ll explain it. A million Landon buttons. Remember Alf Landon? 😂

[writinginthesecrettrees]

Things found in the box of photos and other random paper things we got from my grandpa’s estate:

[read-marx-and-lenin]

Was it antifascist when the USSR only ever allowed less than 10% of the population to vote for the one candidate the dictatorship put forward for each role?

Why did you deactivate your last account? Were you upset that you looked so foolish? You don't look any less foolish creating multiple alternate accounts to send anon hate with. I don't even have anon asks turned off.

The Soviet Union had universal suffrage. Every voting-age adult was allowed to participate in the elections, besides felons and those who were incapable of voting due to mental disability. All ballots were secret (at least, after 1936. Oftentimes elections prior were done by show of hands, but this became problematic.)

If you are referring to the election of the Presidium or the appointment of the Premier by the elected representatives of the Supreme Soviet, I would consider that more democratic than the election of the President of the United States, since not only was the Presidium a council of multiple people in and of itself instead of one singular person at the head of the government, but the election of the Presidium was undertaken by representatives who were directly elected by the people, as opposed to the electors of the Electoral College in the United States who are appointed by party officials.

If you are referring to the election of the General Secretary of the Communist Party by Communist party members, then that position was not a governmental one. While the General Secretary did indeed have significant political influence due to their role as leader of the vanguard party, they were not a dictator and the position did not confer any state powers.

Not only were the Supreme Soviet and the Presidium composed of many different people who collectively decided upon state actions, many powers and duties were constitutionally delegated to regional councils and soviets. The federal government never held supreme power.

As for the idea that there was only "one candidate" for office during elections, the so-called "single-slate ticket" decried by the West, it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about how communist politics works. Competitive tickets were not impossible, although party discipline prevented them from occurring at any high level. Rather, the single-slate ticket arose because prior to the printing of any ballots, there was a period of discussion to determine who would be the candidate in the first place. So it was not a case of people being told by the party "here is your candidate, now you must vote for them". The people and the party worked together to find candidates who had public support in the first place. In addition, not only could voters simply vote "no" and reject a candidate (and any candidate who did not receive a majority of "yes" votes would be rejected,) but all elected officials were subject to recall at any time if they were found to be deficient in their responsibilities by the electorate. Candidates were not forced on the Soviet people by faceless party bureaucrats.

If you want to know more, I recommend checking out "Soviet Democracy" by Pat Sloan (I should note that that particular work forms most of my knowledge on Soviet democracy, so take all of that with a grain of salt for anything past 1937 when the book was written) and pretty much anything written by Anne Louise Strong, although I would recommend "In North Korea", in particular Chapter 3 which goes into detail on pre-war DPRK elections and includes a very enlightening passage on how the North Korean voters at the time viewed single-slate tickets. Suffice it to say, they did not at all feel disenfranchised.

I can understand why you would be misinformed as to how the Soviet government worked. But to decry the Soviet Union as undemocratic, let alone fascistic, is absurd.

[wilwheaton]

Instead of listening to those who misunderstand the history of “Court-packing,” Democrats should adopt the framing used by Senator Robert LaFollette, Jr. to back FDR’s plan. A Progressive Republican from Wisconsin, LaFollette argued passionately that the president wasn’t trying to “pack” the Court; rather, he said, FDR was trying to “unpack” the pro-business bloc that had taken it over in the preceding decades. [Quote] There is a lot of talk of the President “packing” the Court. Let’s not be misled by a red herring. The Court has been “packed” for years – “packed” in the interests of Economic Royalists, “packed” for the benefit of the Liberty Leaguers, “packed” in the cause of reaction and laissezfaire. Let’s be frank about this matter. The vested interests have for years prevailed in the selection of judges. Under our form of government the will of the majority should prevail. If the majority of the people want progress, they shall have it. [The 1936 election] made it clear and unmistakable where the vast majority of the people stand. They want to be free from the shackles of vested interests. They have rejected the Economic Royalists. In the words of Lincoln, they want a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. They cannot have it if the Supreme Court places itself above the Constitution and arrogates to itself legislative functions. One clear way in which they can have their will of last November expressed is to have the Congress “unpack” a Court which has long been “packed” by the forces of reaction. [End Quote] Of course, this argument fell short at the time, because its basic cynicism ran headlong into the stubborn idealism that all too many Americans still had about the institutions of government. But thanks to the ethical scandals and political gamesmanship that have come to define the current Supreme Court, the argument that the Court has been “‘packed’ by the forces of reaction” seems quite obvious. As a result, the argument that it now needs to be “unpacked” would carry much more weight.

Unpacking the Court

[mapsontheweb]

1936 U.S House of Representatives election. Democrats held the largest majority in the history of the House by controlling 55.93% of the House seats, or 334 seats, while Republicans held 39.67% of seats, or 88 seats. The Progressive and Farmer-Labor Party also had seats.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

When prophecy fails, election polling edition

In Canto 20 of Inferno, Dante confronts a pit where the sinners have had their heads twisted around backwards; they trudge, naked and weeping, through puddles of cooling tears. Virgil informs him that these are the fortunetellers, who tried to look forwards in life and now must look backwards forever.

In a completely unrelated subject, how about those election pollsters, huh?

Writing for The American Prospect, historian Rick Perlstein takes a hard look at characteristic failure modes of election polling and ponders their meaning:

https://prospect.org/politics/2024-09-25-polling-imperilment/

Apart from the pre-election polling chaos we're living through today, Perlstein's main inspiration is W Joseph Campbell 2024 University of California Press book, Lost in a Gallup: Polling Failure in US Presidential Elections:

https://www.ucpress.edu/books/lost-in-a-gallup/paper

In Campbell's telling, US election polling follows a century-old pattern: pollsters discover a new technique that works spookily well..for a while. While the new polling technique works, the pollster is hailed a supernaturally insightful fortune-teller.

In 1932, the Raleigh News and Observer was so impressed with polling by The Literary Digest that they proposed replacing elections with Digest's poll. The Digest's innovation was sending out 20,000,000 postcards advertising subscriptions and asking about presidential preferences. This worked perfectly for three elections – 1924, 1928, and 1932. But in 1936, the Digest blew it, calling the election for Alf Landon over FDR.

The Digest was dethroned, and new soothsayers were appointed: George Gallup, Elmo Roper and Archibald Crossler, who replaced the Digest's high-volume polling with a new kind of poll, one that sought out a representative slice of the population (as Perlstein says, this seems "so obvious in retrospect, you wonder how nobody thought of it before").

Representative polling worked so well that, three elections later, the pollsters declared that they could predict the election so well from early on that there was no reason to keep polling voters. They'd just declare the winner after the early polls were in and take the rest of the election off.

That was in 1948 – you know, 1948, the "Dewey Defeats Truman" election?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_Truman

If this sounds familiar, perhaps you – like Perlstein – are reminded of the 2016 election, where Fivethirtyeight and Nate Silver called the election for Hillary Clinton, and we took them at their word because they'd developed a new, incredibly accurate polling technique that had aced the previous two elections.

Silver's innovation? Aggregating state polls, weighting them by accuracy, and then producing a kind of meta-poll that combined their conclusions.

When Silver's prophecy failed in 2016, he offered the same excuse that Gallup gave in 1948: when voters are truly undecided, you can't predict how they'll vote, because they don't know how they'll vote.

Which, you know, okay, sure, that's right. But if you know that the election can't be called, if you know that undecided voters are feeding noise into the system whenever you poll them, then why report the polls at all? If all the polling fluctuation is undecided voters flopping around, not making up their mind, then the fact that candidate X is up 5 points with undecided means nothing.

As the finance industry disclaimer has it, "past performance is no guarantee of future results." But, as Perlstein says, "past performance is all a pollster has to go on." When Nate Silver weights his model in favor of a given poll, it's based on that poll's historical accuracy, not its future accuracy, because its future accuracy can't be determined until it's in the past. Like Dante's fortune-tellers, pollsters have to look backwards even as they march forwards.

Of course, it doesn't help that in some cases, Silver was just bad at assessing polls for accuracy, like when he put polls from the far-right "shock pollster" Trafalgar Group into the highly reliable bucket. Since 2016, Trafalgar has specialized in releasing garbage polls that announce that MAGA weirdos are way ahead, and because they always say that, they were far more accurate than the Clinton-predicting competition in 2016 when they proclaimed that Trump had it in the bag. For Silver, this warranted an "A-" on reliability, and that is partially to blame for how bad Silver's 2020 predictions were, when Republicans got pasted, but Trafalgar continued to predict a Democratic wipeout. Silver's methodology has a huge flaw: because Trafalgar's prediction history began in 2016, that single data-point made them look pretty darned reliable, even though their method was to just keep saying the same thing, over and over:

https://www.ettingermentum.news/p/the-art-of-losing-a-fivethirtyeight

Pollsters who get lucky with a temporarily reliable methodology inevitably get cocky and start cutting corners. After all, polling is expensive, so discontinuing the polls once you think you have an answer is a way to increase the enterprise's profitability. But, of course, pollsters can only make money so long as they're somewhat reliable, which leads to a whole subindustry of excuse-making when this cost-cutting bites them in the ass. In 1948, George Gallup blamed his failures on the audience, who failed to grasp the "difference between forecasting an election and picking the winner of a horse race." In 2016, Silver declared that he'd been right because he'd given Trump at 28.6% chance of winning.

This isn't an entirely worthless excuse. If you predict that Clinton's victory is 71.4% in the bag, you are saying that Trump might win. But pollsters want to eat their cake and have it, too: when they're right, they trumpet their predictive accuracy, without any of the caveats they are so insistent upon when they blow it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jDlo7YfUxc

There's always some excuse when it comes to the polls: in 1952, George Gallup called the election a tossup, but it went for Eisenhower in a landslide. He took out a full-page NYT ad, trumpeting that he was right, actually, because he wasn't accounting for undecided voters.

Polling is ultimately a form of empiricism-washing. The pollster may be counting up poll responses, but that doesn't make the prediction any less qualitative. Sure, the pollster counts responses, but who they ask, and what they do with those responses, is purely subjective. They're making guesses (or wishes) about which people are likely to vote, and what it means when someone tells you they're undecided. This is at least as much an ideological project as it is a scientific one:

https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-09-23-polling-whiplash/

But for all that polling is ideological, it's a very thin ideology. When it comes to serious political deliberation, questions like "who is likely to vote" and "what does 'undecided' mean" are a lot less important than, "what are the candidates promising to do?" and "what are the candidates likely to do?"

But – as Perlstein writes – the only kind of election journalism that is consistently, adequately funded is poll coverage. As a 1949 critic put it, this isn't the "pulse of democracy," it's "its baby talk."

Today, Tor Books publishes VIGILANT, a new, free LITTLE BROTHER story about creepy surveillance in distance education. It follows SPILL, another new, free LITTLE BROTHER novella about oil pipelines and indigenous landback.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/09/26/dewey-beats-truman/#past-performance-is-no-guarantee-of-future-results

[mesetacadre]

The soviet and chinese constitutions do (did) have seperation of powers tho

There is a difference between different organs being assigned different tasks largely corresponding to the three powers, and the supposed ideological adherence to the principle that those three powers should be independent of each other, and that the judicial branch in particular should be unaffected by "politics". I'll use the USSR's 1936 consistution because it's the one im familiar with, I'm sure there are many people who could talk about China's constitution.

In the USSR, the legislative power is vested in the Supreme Soviet, made up of the Soviet of the Union and the Soviet of Nationalities

ARTICLE 32. The legislative power of the U.S.S.R. is exercised exclusively by the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.

ARTICLE 33. The Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. consists of two chambers : the Soviet of the Union and the Soviet of Nationalities.

ARTICLE 38. The Soviet of the Union and the Soviet of Nationalities have an equal right to initiate legislation.

ARTICLE 39. A law is considered adopted if passed by both Chambers of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. by a simple majority vote in each.

The Supreme Soviet elects a Presidum, a sort of commission which rules inbetween sessions of the Supreme Soviet.

ARTICLE 48. The Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. at a joint sitting of both Chambers elects the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. [...] The Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. is accountable to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. for all its activities.

ARTICLE 49. The Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. : [...] b) Interprets laws of the U.S.S.R. in operation, issues decrees; [...] h) Exercises the right of pardon [...]

Let's take a look at a few more articles pertaining to the legislative branch.

ARTICLE 52. A member of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. may not be prosecuted or arrested without the consent of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., and during the period when the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. is not in session, without the consent of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.

At the level of the republics it's very similar, each with its own Supreme Soviet and Presidium, including the right to pardon

ARTICLE 60. The Supreme Soviet of a Union Republic: [...] d) Exercises the right of amnesty and pardon of citizens sentenced by the judicial organs of the Union Republic.

Onto the executive:

ARTICLE 64. The highest executive and administrative organ of state authority of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is the Council of People's Commissars of the U.S.S.R.

ARTICLE 65. The Council of People's Commissars of the U.S.S.R. is responsible to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. and accountable to it; and in the intervals between sessions of the Supreme Soviet it is responsible and accountable to the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.

ARTICLE 70. The Council of People's Commissars of the U.S.S.R. is appointed by the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. [...]

And it's once again replicated at the level of the Republics. For now it is somewhat similar to liberal democracies. The legislative branch (the Supreme Soviet) is elected, and the executive branch is appointed by it. Although this isn't the case at the local level:

ARTICLE 94. The organs of state authority in territories, regions, autonomous regions, areas, districts, cities and rural localities (stanitsas, villages, hamlets, kishlaks, auls) are the Soviets of Working People's Deputies.

ARTICLE 95. The Soviets of Working People's Deputies of territories, regions, autonomous regions, areas, districts, cities and rural localities (stanitsas, villages, hamlets, kishlaks, auls) are elected by the working people of the respective territories, regions, autonomous regions, areas, districts, cities or rural localities for a term of two years.

ARTICLE 101. The executive organs of the Soviets of Working People's Deputies are directly accountable both to the Soviets of Working People's Deputies which elected them and to the executive organ of the superior Soviet of Working People's Deputies.

Onto the judicial branch:

ARTICLE 102. In the U.S.S.R. justice is administered by the Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R., the Supreme Courts of the Union Republics, the Territorial and the Regional courts, the courts of the Autonomous Republics and the Autonomous Regions, the Area courts, the special courts of the U.S.S.R. established by decision of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., and the People's Courts.

ARTICLE 103. In all courts cases are tried with the participation of people's assessors, except in cases specially provided for by law.

At all levels except the local level, the courts are appointed by the Supreme Soviet:

ARTICLE 105. The Supreme Court of the U.S.S.R. and the special courts of the U.S.S.R. are elected by the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. for a term of five years.

ARTICLE 106. The Supreme Courts of the Union Republics are elected by the Supreme Soviets of the Union Republics for a term of five years.

ARTICLE 107. The Supreme Courts of the Autonomous Republics are elected by the Supreme Soviets of the Autonomous Republics for a term of five years.

ARTICLE 108. The Territorial and the Regional courts, the courts of the Autonomous Regions and the Area courts are elected by the Territorial, Regional or Area Soviets of Working People's Deputies of the Autonomous Regions for a term of five years.

ARTICLE 109. People's Courts are elected by the citizens of the district on the basis of universal, direct and equal suffrage by secret ballot for a term of three years.

ARTICLE 112. Judges are independent and subject only to the law.

ARTICLE 113. Supreme supervisory power over the strict execution of the laws by all People's Commissariats and institutions subordinated to them, as well as by public servants and citizens of the U.S.S.R. is vested in the Procurator of the U.S.S.R.

ARTICLE 114. The Procurator of the U.S.S.R. is appointed by the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. for a term of seven years.

And lastly, let's take a brief look at the role of citizens:

ARTICLE 136. Elections of deputies are equal : each citizen has one vote; all citizens participate in elections on an equal footing.

ARTICLE 139. Elections of deputies are direct : all Soviets of Working People's Deputies from rural and city Soviets of Working People's Deputies to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., inclusive, are elected by the citizens by direct vote.

ARTICLE 141. Candidates for election are nominated according to electoral areas. The right to nominate candidates is secured to public organizations and societies of the working people: Communist Party organizations, trade unions, cooperatives, youth organizations and cultural societies.

ARTICLE 142. It is the duty of every deputy to report to his electors on his work and on the work of the Soviet of Working People's Deputies, and he is liable to be recalled at any time in the manner established by law upon decision of a majority of the electors.

So there is a clear differentiation between these powers, with a heavy emphasis on local democracy, and recall of any deputy at any time. Before making any conclusions, let's go back to the first articles of the constitution.

ARTICLE 1. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of workers and peasants.

ARTICLE 2. The Soviets of Working People's Deputies, which grew and attained strength as a result of the overthrow of the landlords and capitalists and the achievement of the dictatorship of the proletariat, constitute the political foundation of the U.S.S.R.

ARTICLE 3. In the U.S.S.R. all power belongs to the working people of town and country as represented by the Soviets of Working People's Deputies.

These articles aren't empty platitudes, they constitute a dictatorship of the proletariat, the unilateral application of one class's interests over all others. This is what legally and practically defined the USSR. Every other aspect of the state is ultimately subordinated to this. And like I said in the other post, this is also the case in liberal democracies, except it's not legally recognized and the class dictatorship is hidden behind smoke and mirrors of idealist notions. It's not that the actual, legal, separation of powers exists or not, because this will be entirely dependent on the development of socialism and the concrete conditions. It's that we don't take the separation of powers as an ideological reclamation, and we don't pretend the state is more or less democratic because of it. If anything, when socialism is developed enough, and the threat of a counter-revolution is dissipated enough, so that the repressive functions of the stage begin to wither away (and therefore stop being a state at all), the separation of these "powers" will become even less significant, as what is left after the state ceases to exist as such is the simple administration of resources and society-- communism. Until then, the state will be used as a tool by the proletariat, and will take whichever form it deems most convenient, including or excluding a separation of powers.

[newyorkthegoldenage]

Jubilant crowds in Times Square watching the returns on the "Zipper" on election night, November 3, 1936. Mounted police augmented regular patrolmen on duty to keep traffic lanes open during the all-night celebration.

Photo: Associated Press

[murphy-stamp]

What's happening in Palestine is not "complicated", and it's not some insane "2000 year war about religion".

1917 : The Balfour Declaration was passed by the British, signing over the Palestinian land that was not their's to begin with to the Jewish people. Jewish people are not native to Palestine, and “israel” did not exist until 1948. The Balfour Declaration was the most controversial and contested documented in all of modern history.

1936 : A partition came into play, where the British once again promised the Palestinian land to be allocated to the Jewish people to become a "Jewish state". A 3 year revolt takes place to contest the partition which brought an end the the British army having anymore control over Palestine, and over 5000 Palestinians were killed. During this time the first armed zionist group was formed (Irgun) and they launched a series of unprecedented attacks against the Palestinian people.

1946 : Irgun bombed the King David Hotel which killed another 91 Palestinians, then in May of 1948 "israel" was formed which resulted in 750,000 Palestinians being displaced and 530 Palestinian villages being destroyed - this is referred to as the 1st Nakba (which means "disaster" in Arabic) - the 2nd Nakba started on October 7th. The remaining 22% of Palestine that had yet to be occupied was then divided into the Gaza Strip and The West Bank. That same year the UN passed a legislation that allowed Palestinian refugees to return home, but they were treated as second class citizens. "israel" controls the Palestinian education, prohibits their involvement in politics & elections, they control how much food and water they get, and their medical supplies.

1956-1966 : "israel" massacred the Palestinian villages Qalqilya, Kufr, Qassem, Khan Younis, and As-Samu.

1967 : "israel" occupied the remainder of historic Palestine in Gaza & The West Bank (and by occupy I mean they forcibly removed Palestinians from their homes, demolished their homes, or lived in the upper parts of their houses, forcing Palestinians to live in the lower halves, and then they built wire fences over top of these houses on the outside to block their view of the sky and so they could also throw garbage, boiling water, & human waste at the Palestinians walking the streets below. During that time another 300,000 Palestinians were displaced. The UN called for "israel" to leave Palestine, but they did not do that.

1976 : 1000's of hectares of Palestinian land were forcibly confiscated & protests were brutally shut down.

1987 : The first Intifada starts (which means the Palestinian revolution) where "isreal" established 45 more settlements on Palestinian land. A massive peaceful protest broke out by the Palestinians to show that the occupation & brutalization of their land and people was no longer acceptable. The IOF defence minister at the time, Yitzhak Rabin, ordered the IOF to break the bones of all Palestinians who were protesting. This is when the Hamas resistance group was founded (it was actually created initially by "israel" in hopes that it would divide the Palestinian people and shut down the Muslim Brother Hood - another resistance group). During that time 1000+ Palestinians were killed by the IOF.

1993 : the 2nd Intifada begins. The Oslo Accord is signed which was meant to being "peace" and a "2 state solution", but that just turned into more brutality by the IOF and another 5000+ Palestinians were killed. The IOF instigated Palestinian protestors with 1.3 million rounds of ammunition. Diana Buttu (a Palestinian-Canadian lawyer) made a statement saying the bill for a "2 state solution" was no more than a distraction for "israel" to carry out their plan in silence from the rest of the world which was always for the extermination, ethnic cleansing, and occupation of Palestine.

2014 : The Gaza War happened. This is when "israel" introduced the apartheid wall, which further isolated the Palestinians. They also launched a large scale attack on Gaza with ariel & naval fire power, 2500+ Palestinians were killed in just 50 days. In Gaza the IOF destroyed 83 schools, 10 healthcare centres, and 12,600 housing units.

2008-2023 : 8000+ more Palestinians were killed by the IOF, and now since october 7th 23,000+ Palestinians have been killed, and 1.6 million have been displaced.

This is one of the largest ongoing examples of colonial violence in the world today.

[deadpresidents]

Which Landon would make a better President: Alf or Michael?

First of all, I'd like to congratulate you for almost certainly being the first person to ever reference Michael Landon on Tumblr. I'm guessing that two or three generations of my readers had to do a Wikipedia search to figure out who that was.

Anyway, I think the more pertinent question is which Alf would make a better President? Landon or...well...Alf?

I think we all know the correct answer to that question. However, one potential issue might be that the news about President Biden's dog biting Secret Service agents would pale in comparison to the scandal of President Alf eating scores of cats while in office.

And, someone may need to double-check this fact, but I'm pretty sure that Alf has had more Electoral votes cast on his behalf over the years than Alf Landon actually received (8 total Electoral votes) in his landslide defeat to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936: